Creating Livable Cities for All Ages:

Intergenerational Strategies and Initiatives 1

Willem van Vliet-

University of Colorado, USA

1
Paper prepared for UN-Habitats Global Dialogue on Harmonious Cities for All Age Groups at the
World Urban Forum IV, Nanjing, November 3-6, 2008. Jointly published with UN-Habitat.
 Creating Livable Cities for All Ages:
Intergenerational Strategies and Initiatives

Abstract
High-income countries at present tend to have relatively large and growing
aging populations. Conversely, in most low-income countries children and
youth account for very large proportions of the population. Notwithstanding
these divergent demographic situations, current and projected changes in the
composition and distribution of population in high- and low-income countries
alike provide opportunities for strengthening weakened social safety nets,
promoting economic sustainability, and improving social integration in cities
by adopting development strategies that support intergenerational initiatives.

This paper first examines developments related to trends of population aging

and discusses patterns and issues associated with youthful populations. It
then reviews the emergence of a normative platform for creating child-
friendly cities and argues that their characteristics significantly overlap with
elder-friendly cities. Drawing from practical examples of intergenerational
initiatives and programs from around the world, the paper identifies benefits
and challenges of synergistic efforts to create livable cities for all ages. The
conclusion suggests strategic steps and a framework for the formulation and
implementation of appropriate policies.

1
DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS: Changes and Challenges
Unprecedented demographic changes, which had their origins in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries and are continuing well into the twenty-
first century, are transforming the world. Declines in fertility and
improvements in health, reinforced by increasing longevity, have produced
and will continue to produce extraordinary changes in the structure of all
societies, notably the historic reversal in the proportions of young and older
persons (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2002; National
Institute on Aging 2007). The profound, pervasive and enduring
consequences of population aging present enormous opportunities as well as
enormous challenges (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2002).

Against the background of the developments sketched in a companion paper

by Professor Leithaeuser, complex demographic trends play out on a global
scale, interacting with economic, political and cultural changes which have
implications for public policies. Urban planning aimed at supporting
harmonious cities will need to respond effectively to these changes.

A recent report by the National Institute on Aging (2007) makes the following
observations concerning global aging trends:

Family structures are changing. As people live longer and have

fewer children, family structures are transformed, leaving older people
with fewer options for care.

Patterns of work and retirement are shifting. Shrinking ratios of

workers to pensioners and people spending a larger portion of their
lives in retirement increasingly strain existing health and pension
systems.

Social insurance systems are evolving. As social insurance

expenditures escalate, more countries are evaluating the sustainability
of these systems.

2
 New economic challenges are emerging. Population aging will
have dramatic effects on social entitlement programs, labor supply,
trade, and savings around the globe and may demand new fiscal
approaches to accommodate a changing world.

Marked differences exist between regions in the number and proportion of

older persons. In the more developed regions, almost one-fifth of the
population was aged 60 or older in the year 2000; by 2050, this proportion is
expected to reach one-third. In the less developed regions, only 8 per cent of
the population is currently over the age of 60; however, by 2050 older
persons will make up nearly 20 per cent of the population (UN Department of
Economic And Social Affairs, Population Division. 2002).

While todays proportions of older people typically are highest in more

developed countries, the most rapid increases in older populations are
occurring in the less developed world (National Institute on Aging 2007).

Most of the more developed nations have had decades to adjust to this
change in age structure (Figure 1). For example, it took more than a century
for Frances population age 65 and over to increase from 7 to 14 percent of
the total population. In contrast, this same demographic aging process will
occur in two decades in Brazil (National Institute on Aging 2007).

In response to this compression of aging, institutions must adapt quickly to

accommodate a new age structure. Some less developed nations will be
forced to confront issues, such as social support and the allocation of
resources across generations, without the accompanying economic growth
that characterized the experience of aging societies in the West. In other
words, some countries may grow old before they grow rich (National Institute
on Aging 2007).

3
As the pace of population aging is much faster in developing countries than
in developed countries, developing countries will have less time to adjust to

4
the consequences of population aging and the associated dependency ratios
(Figure 2). Moreover, population aging in the developing countries is taking
place at much lower levels of socio-economic development than was the case
in the developed countries (UN Department of Economic And Social Affairs,
Population Division. 2002).

Figure 2 Child and old-age dependency ratios, 1950-2050, in

developed and developing countries

Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2007a).

Most older people today have children, and many have grandchildren and
siblings. However, in countries with very low birth rates, future generations
will have few if any siblings. As a result of this trend and the global trend
toward having fewer children, people will have less familial care and support
as they age (National Institute on Aging 2007, p. 16).

Changes in household structures occurring in the face of large numbers of

AIDS deaths in parts of Africa and Asia may leave many orphans living with
and supported by grandparents (e.g., Oduaran 2003; Cook and White 2006;
Nyesigomwe 2006). There also are broader concerns related to young adult
migration to urban areas, levels of intrafamily remittances, and return

5
migration of adults after extended periods of employment in other countries
(National Institute on Aging, 2007, p. 17).

In addition, traditional patterns of filial care are changing (UN Department of

Economic and Social Affairs 2005; for Africa, see also Aboderin 2006 and
Kamete 2007; for Asia, see also Martin 1990, Van Eewijk 2006, Keng-mun
Lee 2004, and Croll 2006). Post-nuptial co-residence of children with parents
has been steadily declining owing to rural-urban migration of younger
generations, modern housing constraints, and rises in labor force
participation by women. 2 In Japan, such living arrangements have been
decreasing by about one percent annually, dropping from 86.8 percent in
1960 to 49.5% in 2000 (Yamato 2006). In Korea, the proportion of elderly
living with any child decreased from 80.5 percent in 1980 to 68.2 percent in
1990 and 49.1 percent in 2000 (Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific 2007).

The potential support ratio or PSR expresses a relationship between the

number of persons aged 15-64 years per one person aged 65 years or
older. 3 The impact of demographic aging is visible in the PSR, which between
1950 and 2000 fell from 12 to 9 people in the working ages per each person
65 years or older. By mid-century, the PSR is projected to fall to 4 working-
age persons for each person 65 years or older (Figure 3). Potential support
ratios have important implications for social security schemes, particularly
traditional systems in which current workers pay for the benefits of current
retirees (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
2002). The costs of public welfare policies also present great challenges for

2
In the U.S. and several other western nations, there has been a countervailing trend as difficult
employment prospects are leading young people to defer leaving the parental home to form new
households. It seems reasonable to assume that this recent development will reverse itself once economic
circumstances improve.
3
The term dependency burden is often used to denote implications of this relationship for potential
workers. It is not used here because the meanings associated with it are not consistent with the interest in
harmonious intergenerational relationships in this paper.

6
societies that have traditionally relied on filial care arrangements (see, e.g.,
Yamato 2006; Aboderin 2006).

Figure 3 - Potential support ratio (PSR): world, 1950-2050

Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2002.

In some countries the share of gross domestic product devoted to social

insurance for older people is expected to more than double in upcoming
years. Countries, therefore, may have only a few years to intensify efforts
before demographic effects come to bear (National Institute on Aging 2007).

While the preceding discussion focused on the economic and human service
aspects of current demographic trends, concerns elsewhere have focused on
security issues related to geopolitical considerations (e.g., Jackson and Howe
2008). Of greater interest in the present context are the implications for
urban planning and urban development policy. Research has clearly shown
the preferences of elders for aging-in-place, so they can grow older in their
own homes and without disruption of long established social support
networks in their local community (Partners for Livable Communities 2008;

7
see also the toolkit in Ball, n.d.). The AdvantAge Initiative in the US is an
example of a coordinated effort to help counties, cities, and towns prepare
for the growing number of older adults who are "aging-in-place" while
creating livable communities for people of all ages. 4 Aging-in-place also
makes good economic sense for governments, as it is a less costly
alternative to institutional care. Consistent with this thinking, there has been
growing interest in establishing criteria for elder-friendly communities (e.g.,
AARP 2005; Blue Moon 2006; National Association of Area Agencies for Aging
2007). As we shall see next, this development parallels the emergence of an
international movement to create child-friendly cities (e.g., Riggio 2002;
Woolcock and Steele 2008).

TOWARDS CHILD-FRIENDLY CITIES

There are more young people today than ever before. Almost half of the
global population is under the age of 24; 1.2 billion people are younger than
15. Within developing regions, it is the least-developed countries that remain
younger than the rest of the world: in 2005, the global median age was 28
years, but in 10 least-developed African countries, the median age was 16 or
younger (UN Habitat 2006).

The effects of these demographic trends must be seen in the context of

migratory patterns. It is typically youthful populations that leave rural areas
for urban destinations in search of jobs, adding to already large numbers of
youth living in cities in the low-income countries. Those who leave their
home country, for economic and other reasons, are also predominantly
young people (McKenzie 2007). A consequence of these migration flows are
impoverished communities of origin where those who remain behind, mostly
older people, find themselves with diminished or no supports during a time in
their lives when they tend to become more dependent on assistance (for
example, for Africa, see Aboderin 2006; see Kreager 2006 for a study of
three Indonesian communities; see Round 2006 for Russia). This becomes

4
See http://www.vnsny.org/advantage/index.html .

8
especially problematic when government programs are absent or insufficient.
At the same time, young people in cities find themselves without the social
support networks that were traditionally provided by older adults and that
are especially important in coping with poverty.

Estimates suggest that 60 percent of the worlds population will live in cities
by 2030 and that as many as 60 percent of urban dwellers will be under the
age of 18. Most urbanization will occur in cities in the low-income countries,
where already 30 percent of the population lives below official poverty lines
(Ruble et al. 2003, p. 1). Many urban dwellers have limited or no access to
basic services, employment, and adequate housing. The challenges arising
from this urban growth exceed the capacity of most cities to meet even the
most basic needs of large proportions of the urban population (see UN-
HABITAT 2003, 2004; Jack n.d.). For this reason, investing in urban children
and youth is not only a question of human rights and social justice. It is also
about potential economic benefits and increasing citizen security, as young
people are supported to become integrated members of society (Ruble et al.
2003). Indeed, much of the literature on the implications of the so called
youth bulge focuses on economic consequences and opportunities, national
and international security concerns, and the purported relationship between
them (e.g., Chaaban 2008; Lam 2007).

In addition to these policy perspectives, there are also aspects of planning

that affect the experience of growing up in cities and access of the younger
generation to opportunities for healthy development. These considerations
have spurred interest in the creation of child-friendly cities. Such cities are
different from most contemporary cities the planning and development of
which has supported first and foremost the production and consumption of
goods and services. A further goal has traditionally been efficient operation of
auxiliary systems such as transportation, communication, and utility
infrastructure. The primary beneficiaries of this approach are the chief
producers and consumers: paid adult workers and the organizations that

9
employ them. The needs of other groups usually take a back seat. This is
especially so in market-based societies where access to goods and services is
based on ability to pay a price that guarantees suppliers a profit. Those who
cannot translate their needs into a market demand are largely left out. They
include people with low disposable incomes (the urban poor), people with
disabilities, many elders, and children. Among these disadvantaged groups,
children deserve special attention because they, more than others, lack
political and economic power.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted by the General
Assembly in 1989 5 , created a basis to address this lack of representation. It
spells out many rights of children, including the right to have their voices
heard in all matters affecting them. State governments have a mandate to
support implementation of CRC principles at the local level. Although most
city governments have been slow to establish participatory processes with
children and youth, there is a growing interest in many countries to promote
child-friendly cities (CFCs). Following the Habitat II Summit in Istanbul in
1996, UNICEF established a CFC Secretariat as part of its Innocenti Research
Centre in Florence, Italy. Although its operations were discontinued in
December 2005 owing to a re-prioritization of funding, its web site remains
and a CFC network in Europe now organizes an annual conference. Similar
networks exist in Canada and Australia. Recent years have seen CFC
declarations and aspirations from London to San Salvador and from St.
Petersburg to Amman, and exciting CFC initiatives and programs are
underway in many Latin American, African, and Asian countries.

The next section outlines normative frameworks that have recently made a
focus on children and youth into a higher priority for urban policy. These
policies increasingly call for programs that support the exercise of agency by
young people, enabling and empowering them to act as productive
participants in the development of their communities.

5
See: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm.

10
New normative frameworks
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the international community began to
reconceptualize security more in terms of people, and less of states.
Forefronting people engendered a slow and contested process to articulate
and implement new normative policy frameworks around human rights. The
World Summit for Children in 1990 was the first of a series of global
conferences driven by a growing awareness of a single world that shared
common problems requiring non-confrontational, cooperative approaches. It
adopted a Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of
Children and a Plan of Action for implementing the Declaration, which
followed the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
one year earlier. The CRC, since ratified by all but two countries, recognizes,
inter alia, the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for
development and the right to have their voices heard on all matters that
affect them. It stipulates non-negotiable standards and obligations and
declares that states shall provide material assistance and support programs.

The U.N. Habitat Agenda, adopted at the City Summit of Istanbul in 1996,
maintains this concern with the well-being of children, but brings into focus
the significance of the larger urban context, providing that:

Governments at all levels, including local authorities, should continue

to identify and disseminate best practices, and should develop and
apply shelter and human settlements development indicators,
including those that reflect the rights and wellbeing of children.6

6
Ibid.

11
It further states that:

the wellbeing of children is a critical indicator

of a healthy society. 7

In the wake of the Habitat Agenda, UNICEF established the Child-Friendly

Cities secretariat, which stimulated work around the world to make cities
more supportive of childrens needs. These efforts led to the creation of a set
of assessment criteria that have not, however, so far been systematically
used in evaluation research. 8

In 2001, the UN Secretary General reported in We the Children on progress

made since the World Summit of 1990. His report also noted where there
was still room for improvement, or unfinished business.

In a follow-up to that summit, at the UN General Assembly Special Session

on Children, held in 2002, children from 154 countries for the first time
played an official role in a General Assembly session, serving as delegates
from governments and NGOs and producing the statement, A World Fit for
Us. 9 This Special Session also resulted in a global agenda, A World Fit for
Children, 10 that laid out a plan to bridge the gap between the great
promises and the modest achievements of the 1990s, which was assessed
in a mid-decade review in December 2007. The Millennium Development
Goals, approved by world leaders in 2002, specify various targets related
specifically to children, including a reduction in child mortality and
achievement of universal primary education, to be attained by 2015.

7
UN Habitat Agenda: Goals and Principles, Commitments and the Global Plan of Action (1996).
8
See UNICEF (2004).
9
UNICEF (2002). Available at http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/docs_new/documents/wffc-en.pdf.
10
Ibid.

12
The emergence of these new normative frameworks, briefly reviewed here,
put forth rights-based policy platforms that set the stage for an increasing
emphasis on children living in poverty as a priority in urban development
policies. 11

Criteria
The creation of CFCs must be placed in the context of a policy and planning
broader framework that is captured by a provisional set of criteria, proposed
to evaluate how well cities meet childrens needs and to inform CFC policies
and programs. 12 According to these criteria, broadly derived from rights
articulated in the CRC, a CFC includes:
Physical environments that respond to the particular needs and
concerns of children for instance, safe crossing zones on the way to
school; safe play spaces; toilets that are child-friendly. Aspects of
hospitals, schools, transport systems, traffic management, parks,
common space, water supply, waste removal, and the like, that help to
make cities more child friendly.
Information, communication and social mobilization to promote
the concept of CFCs and raise awareness of childrens requirements
with regard to the physical environment.
Methods to involve children in assessing and improving their own
neighborhoods and give them a voice in local decision-making
processes.
Plans of action with and without the participation of children that aim
at improving childrens physical environments
Training packages/ methodologies for different target groups
(decision makers, planners, schoolteachers, parents, children, etc)
focused on making improvements of childrens physical environments

11
Age criteria to define children and youth overlap, but the focus in this report is specifically on
children, referenced here as those under 18 years of age. There exist additional agreements and policy
documents that concern themselves with youth, which are not included in this review.
12
Unpublished document, 2003, Eliana Riggio Chaudhuri and Eva Clarhll, Rdda Barnen/CFC Secretariat,
Innocenti Research Centre, UNICEF, Florence, Italy.

13
 Laws, rules, regulations and planning norms that take childrens
needs and views into account.
Municipal-level institutions focused on childrens rights (a
special child unit or person within a municipality such as a childrens
ombudsman).
Monitoring systems to assess the quality of the environment for
children
Planning and impact indicators to evaluate impacts of municipal or
community actions on children.

CONVERGENCE OF CHILD-, YOUTH- AND ELDER-FRIENDLY CITIES:

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES

Benefits of Integration
In the Tokiwadaira district, on the outskirts of Tokyo, a landlord visited his
tenant only to discover a skeleton inside the apartment. The tenant had died
three years before. None of the neighbors had noticed the man was missing.
His bank kept on making rent payments until his account was empty and a
rent check finally bounced, prompting the landlord's visit and the gruesome
discovery (Hideyuki 2007).

Situations of such isolation are inconceivable in socially integrated

communities with mutually supportive relationships across the generations.
Aside from relatively rare, but not unique, cases as just mentioned, what are
the benefits of intergenerational integration and harmonious cities for people
of all ages? Positive outcomes can be organized into the following
interrelated categories.

Resources. Savings in resources will result from three factors, with

pragmatic and substantive aspects. First, economically and socially
elders represent tremendous underused resources. Their greater
involvement in the lives of children and youth will free up this potential

14
with very little investment of public resources. A good example is
ExperienceCorps in the USA, in which seniors tutor elementary school
children (Carlson et al. 2004; Glass et al. 2004). RespectAbility, a
similar program of the U.S. National Council on Aging, operates with a
broader focus on nonprofits. Programs can also take advantage of
internet technology, enabling elders to tutor students more flexibly
without barriers to spatial mobility (Middlemiss and Meyer 2004). In
one study of an informal science education initiative, co-learning by
1,568 children aged 5-13 and 1,471 seniors resulted in significant
social and cognitive gains (Morgan et al. 2007). A randomized
controlled trial in Brazil found that structured intergenerational
activities had positive effects on some aspects of social capital for both
adolescents and elderly people (De Souza and Grundy 2007). Denver
Public Schools has a GrandPals intergenerational program, while Full
Circle Inter-Generational has been organizing several health- and
education-related programs that bring together youth and elders with
benefits to both. Health-related intergenerational initiatives are also
becoming increasingly important in Africa as communities struggle
with the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS on parental care (e.g.,
Oduaran 2006; Nyesigomwe 2006). Hope Meadows, a neighborhood in
Illinois, US, in which elders receive housing benefits in return for
mentorship of foster children, is another excellent example of
advantages of elders as resources in intergenerational arrangements
(Smith 2001; see also Kuehne 2005).

Second, the reverse is also true; children and youth are valuable
community resources, typically unrecognized. Their greater
involvement through volunteer activity and service-learning can
greatly benefit elders. Wonderful examples of such efforts already
exist. For instance, GenerationLink is a classroom-based initiative that
enlists high-school students to teach seniors how to use the Internet.
Intergenerational Innovations in Seattle, Washington, has similarly

15
established a Computer Training Corps (Kaplan 2002). However,
there has been no systematic facilitation of such efforts. Importantly,
capitalizing on youth and elders as resources for each other and for
the community at large shifts attention away from common
misperceptions of these populations as burdens on society and instead
offers the much more positive view that youth and elders represent
untapped assets with valuable contributions to make (see, e.g.,
Seedsman 2006).

Third, intergenerational integration of urban livability initiatives will

result in more efficient use of physical facilities and funding sources.
For example, schools can be used for meal services that cater to elders
and can also serve as sites for the delivery of social and other
programs targeting elders during after-school hours. There are good
examples of such multifunctional use of schools throughout the day.
Similarly, senior centers can be set up to include child-care and after-
school programs for children and youth. Such shared usage sites allow
local government and school districts to respond more flexibly to
demographic shifts, obviating the need for demolition and construction
of specialized facilities designed narrowly to accommodate a single age
group. The resulting flexibility reduces the costs of developing
appropriate physical infrastructure. It also fosters intergenerational
interactions that help create social capital and strengthen community.
Good examples are the more than 500 Mehrgenerationenhaeuser in
Germany. After five-year start-up funding from the Ministry of Family,
Seniors, Women and Youth, these multigenerational centers are
expected to be self-sustaining through entrepreneurial activity such as
running a caf, renting costumes, and offering creative and
educational programs.

A further benefit of integration will come from economies of scale

created by streamlining staff and eliminating duplicative processes.

16
 Examples of intergenerational learning centers and similar multi-use
sites include Denvers Elder Place at Brown Elementary School, for
instance, which is a Medicaid-certified older adult day program co-
located in a public elementary school that intergenerational programs
in music and movement designed to increase "brain power" for both
elders and children. Cases such as this provide a valuable foundation
for more systematic policies that support integration across the
lifespan (see also Whitehouse et al. 2000).

Policy Formulation and Implementation. Aside from more efficient

use of human, physical and financial resources, integration will
facilitate the formulation and implementation of policies and programs.
Rather than having to compare and weigh competing alternatives,
trading off one population group against another in a zero sum game,
policy makers will have a more integrated picture, showing overlaps
and connections that are mutually reinforcing and supportive. 13

Political Mobilization. Intergenerational integration will enable

representative organizations of child, youth and elder interests to join
forces in pursuing a unified policy agenda. Their pooled resources and
coordinated advocacy will be more effective, and their media coverage
will be more sustained. No longer perceived as special interest
groups, but seen as representative of a broad spectrum of the
population, the issues they champion will find more electoral support.
This will be especially the case at the local level, where civic
engagement and political awareness tends to be precede and be
greater than at the national level.

13
Cost savings may induce policy makers to make decisions that only on the face of it create
intergenerational situations (e.g., co-location of a school and senior services), because other factors (for
example, establishing intergenerational programs, training staff, and embracing families) remain absent. In
other words, physical change in itself will usually be insufficient.

17
Sustained Community Development. This is the web of support woven
into a community when people know one another and begin, often in very
small ways, to take responsibility for making their community a better place.
Making Connections, a program of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, fosters
this dynamic in disadvantaged neighborhoods in cities across the US.
Policies to develop a shared vision of livability in urban communities can lead
to new programs that make neighborhoods safer. At the same time,
neighbors of all ages may begin to watch out for one another and join forces
to reduce risk factors for crime and violence, helping create the fertile soil
in which good policy needs to be planted. Such approaches contrast with
deficit-based perspectives that focus narrowly on problems, seeking instead
to build on the developmental assets of children and youth and the
communities in which they live (Scales et al. 2001). Communities for all
Ages is another example of an asset-based, community-wide, multi-agency
effort (Henkin et al., 2005).

Challenges to Intergenerational Integration

Attaining the benefits just described will not be easy. Integration of the
child/youth- and elder-oriented initiatives faces two types of challenges,
related to, respectively, characteristics of the key stakeholders and the
populations they serve. Both sets of factors lead organizations to focus
inward and operate in silos.

First, stakeholders typically have organizational missions and

mandates that are age-specific. For example, the federally mandated
Area Agencies on Aging in the US have missions to ensure
coordinated, accessible services for persons aged 60 and over to live
independent, meaningful and dignified lives. In contrast, Boys & Girls
clubs are youth guidance organizations dedicated to promoting the
educational, vocational, social and character development of girls and
boys ages 7 to 18. Organizations representing the interests of aging
populations may offer providing home-help services, whereas youth-

18
 serving organizations may focus on skill development programs. A
broader and more cost effective view would allow organizations to
support initiatives that combine these goals, such that elders could
share their experiences and expertise to benefit youth, while youth
could reciprocate by performing household chores or running errands
for elders with mobility constraints.

Stakeholder organizations also have separate funding streams

earmarked for the age groups they serve (Henkin and Butts 2002).
Often funds are allocated to organizations for specific activities and
target populations. Even if they are inclined towards collaborating
across age groups, organizations may be restricted from doing so by
their financial statutes and contractual obligations.

Further, children and youth, as well as elders, may be in situations of

disadvantage. Particularly those of low incomes and minority
backgrounds are often in the social and economic margins. One
practical implication of this fact is that they are restricted in their
mobility, making the logistics of social interactions and
participation more difficult, a problem compounded by the
constraints of school schedules. Most recently, skyrocketing fuel prices
have raised transportation costs with the effect of severely curtailing
services and activities for impacted youth and elder populations (e.g.,
Leland 2008).

In addition, mutual misperceptions are not uncommon.

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent
on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are
reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be
discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are
exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint.

19
 Attributed variously to Plato, to Socrates, to Aristotle, to Cicero, to
Hesiod, to 'an old monk', to an Assyrian cuneiform tablet, and to an
ancient Egyptian papyrus, regardless of its authenticity, this quote well
illustrates denigrating views of youth common among adults. A recent
British survey found that 71% of press articles concerning young
people had a negative tone. 14 Likewise, according to federal research
in the US, the media portray young people as alcoholics and drug
abusers, criminals, bludgers, lazy, complaining and aggressive. 15
Conversely, research has also found evidence of stereotypical images
of elders in widely different cultures from Nigeria to the U.S. to China
(Okoye 2005; Okoye and Obikeze 2005; Boduroglu et al. 2006).
Elimination of ageism across the lifespan is necessary so that those
who engage in development of their communities do so on equal
footing and on the basis of mutual respect (Pain 2005).

Another potential issue is that children/youth and elders typically have

different levels of skill, knowledge and experience that can
hinder joint activities. Young people often need training and practice to
learn how to be effective when talking in public, conducting meetings,
collecting and analyzing data, and preparing and presenting
recommendations. These different levels of preparation must be
considered by local authorities planning to start intergenerational
initiatives.

Finally, children, youth and elders are populations where frequent life
transitions undermine the sustainability of relationships and
processes. Youth may move away to attend another school or look for
a job elsewhere, and when they become young adults they do not
always transfer their experience to the next cohort. Elders may

14
Published in the magazine Young People Now (13-19 October 2004). See
http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/index.php?p=549
15
See http://www.kqed.org/w/ymc/empowered/stereotypes.html

20
 become too frail to be able to continue their engagement. Other
threats to sustainability are organizational in nature, having to do with
staffing structures, staff training policies, administrative buy-in, etc. All
of these and other challenges are real but can be addressed through
supportive policies and planning.

AREAS OF OVERLAP
There is much overlap in how livability issues impact children, youth and
elders, particularly those with low incomes and limited support systems. All
benefit from neighborhoods that are safe and walkable and housing that is
affordable and near shops, neighbors, and services, with easy access to
public spaces for social interactions. Likewise, all benefit from the availability
of healthy foods at local markets, mercados, and community gardens within
neighborhoods. Schools that serve as community centers and senior centers
that offer child care and after-school programs can simultaneously provide
for the physical and social needs of both elders and children and youth.
Similarly, both populations also need reliable, safe and affordable public
transportation to support independent mobility and access to the resources
of the city.

The long term-outcomes contributing to a livable city for children and youth
are the same long-term outcomes that will create a livable city for elders. A
livable city for all ages requires a supportive:

physical environment, incl. land use mix, transportation network,

housing, and community facilities;
social and economic environment, incl. the local network of
individuals, institutions and community organizations, and
opportunities for employment;
services system, incl. retail and commercial services, homecare
providers, community and public agencies, and medical service
providers; and

21
 system of governance and civic engagement, incl. participation in
political processes, empowerment, and opportunities for community
involvement.

Working collaboratively within this broad framework (see Figure 4) while

drawing on existing strengths in local communities, synergy will be
significant in the following priority areas for policy:

Appropriate regulations. Local authorities must remove regulatory

barriers that hinder community livability and multi-use sites, while
establishing regulations for good community design and housing for
healthy living, transportation, and social interactions. These
recommended changes are based on experiences with universal design
(e.g., Preiser and Ostroff 2001; Dumbaugh 2008) and shared facilities
serving multiple community functions. 16 Other government
interventions relate to tax relief for grandparent caregivers and
incentives for housing schemes supporting intergenerational
relationships (e.g., Beltran and Smith 2003; Thang and Mehta 2006).

Safe and accessible environments. Local authorities need to create

safe pedestrian-friendly streets, parks and other public spaces,
crosswalks, traffic-calming designs, sidewalks. Examples of the
benefits of such interventions come from the planning and
neighborhood planning and design principles behind the Dutch
woonerf (Karsten and Van Vliet- 2006) and the British home zone
(Gill 2006) and cyclovia experiences which spread from Colombia to
Peru, France, Italy, the U.S. and elsewhere. 17

Governance and civic engagement. Local governments must

include youth and elders as part of decision-making processes and to

16
See guidebook, fact sheet and video by Generations United on http://www.gu.org/IG_Sh8191325.asp
17
See http://www.cyclovia.org/.

22
 increase social capital among generations. This work can build on
ongoing efforts to promote participation in local government and
community processes. Civic engagement and empowerment of
children and youth is becoming more accepted and appropriate
methods have been developed (e.g., Commonwealth Youth
Programme 2007; Driskell 2002; Gallagher 2004; UN HABITAT 2004;
UNFPA 2007; Woollcombe 2006, 2007). UN Habitats support for
these efforts has been expressed by Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka, Under-
Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of its
Human Settlements Programme:

youth are a resource, in fact the most important and strategic

resource a country can have. Youth are agents of social change;
they take on a very active role in addressing the issues that
affect them. We have examples of many youth led processes
that are working and making a difference in society even with
minimal resources. What is required is to provide these
initiatives with an enabling environment that will facilitate their
replication. 18

The empowerment of elders and acknowledgement of their agency in

urban development is also slowly gaining currency but still contending
with oft prevailing, mistaken notions of predominant dependence (see,
e.g., Boermel 2006; Vera-Sanso 2006). Of special interest in the
context of cities for all ages are participatory intergenerational
community building initiatives (see Kaplan et al. 2004 and Lawrence-
Jacobsen 2006 for examples).

Innovative food assistance/nutrition programs. Governments

must encourage local food production, support small scale local

18
Commonwealth Youth Forum Opening ceremony: Statement by Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka Under-Secretary-
General of the United Nations. Entebbe, Uganda, 14 November 2007. Available at
http://hq.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=5454&catid=14&typeid=8&subMenuId=0

23
 agriculture, and expand use of existing meal sites to multiple
generations. This work can build on existing programs and practices
around community gardens, nutrition, active living and obesity
reduction (e.g., Doyle 2002; Liddicoat et al. 2007; Lautenschlager and
Smith 2007; Bryant 2008). Related efforts focus on environmental
education and the preservation of natural resources in urban areas
(Mayer-Smith and Peterat 2006).

Culture change. Local governments must engage in social marketing

so residents and decision makers will think of cities foremost in terms
of their livability for all people, irrespective of age of ability, enacting
choices guided by commensurate values. This work can build on the
Madrid International Plan of Action on Aging of 2002 and is consistent
with growing international endorsement of the mission of
InterGeneration Day. 19 For example, in Canada, the Finding Home:
Belonging, Meaning and Dialogue Program is a neighborhood-based
intergenerational initiative the mandate of which is to build residents'
capacity for fostering a sense of belonging. Through train-the-trainer
methodology, participants in the program develop skills in cross-
cultural competencies, community engagement, asset mapping,
dialogue and a values-based approach to address personal, community
and global challenges. Unique to the Finding Home initiative, it
engages youth and seniors from diverse sectors such as local
Indigenous; newcomer; lesbian, gay, transgendered & bisexual
(LGTB); and people with disability communities, resulting in the
production of community guides, art and a neighborhood
intergenerational dialogue about finding and creating a sense of home
together. 20

19
See http://www.intergenerationday.org/index.html
20
For more information see the Justice Institute of British Columbia's Community and Social Justice
Division at: www.jibc.ca/dialogue.

24
Process Towards Integration
Logic Model for Planning and Evaluation. The process towards achieving
harmonious cities for all ages can be described by a logic model, which
makes it possible to work back from its overall goal of creating a livable city
for all age groups to the increasing specificity of long-term, mid-term, and
short term outcomes, and more immediate SMART objectives the
attainment of which links current actions to resource requirements.

By systematically integrating child/youth- and elder-oriented objectives and

outcomes, it is possible to elaborate and refine such a logic model in order to
guide convergence of local policies and programmatic activities in areas of
overlap (Figures 4A-B). For example, a livable city for all ages requires a
supportive physical environment, which may include safe and walkable
environments with a mix of land uses, shared multi-purpose community
facilities and adaptable housing, all of which support aging-in-place and
intergenerational relationships. Likewise, a livable city for all also requires
supportive governance and civic engagement processes, which may include
part-time positions for youth and elders in city agencies and representation
on city committees through a job placement program linked to
intergenerational mentoring and skill-building.

The sequenced outcomes in Figures 4A-B serve as examples only and do not
show the many overlaps and connections that exist between outcomes and
actions. This kind of model is not intended as a rigid plan, but as a guide to
action with continuous feedback loops to enable monitoring and evaluation of
ongoing processes and intermediate outcomes, informing adjustments of
interventions that are not effective or produce unintended results. Indeed,
research must be a critical component of intergenerational policies and
practices. Cities will need to develop indicators that measure the number,
content, and quality of intergenerational practices and their impact on
intergenerational cohesion and community integration more broadly (UN
Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2007c). The Intergenerational

25
 Figure 4A - Logic model for a livable city for all ages

26
 Figure 4B Logic model for a livable city for all ages

27
Solidarity Model (Bengtson and Roberts 1991) and the Depth of
Intergenerational Engagement Scale (Kaplan 2002) are useful starting points
for the development of locally appropriate research tools.

As well, it is important not to lose sight of each population groups unique

requirements. Policies must take advantage of areas of overlap, but they
must also acknowledge distinct needs of each population group.

CONCLUSION
Urban development plans offer useful scaffolding for tying community voices
of youth, elders and others to issues in the five policy priority areas
described above, with policy implications for the four environments identified
as being key to a livable city for all ages. Relevant as well is the participation
of intergovernmental organizations and their working relationship with local
authorities. Another framework for policy integration comes from UNICEFs
work on child-friendly cities and selected sources listed at the end of this
paper. There now also exist organizations that offer valuable resources for
intergenerational initiatives, including concrete examples from a variety of
areas. 21 The Journal of Intergenerational Relationships also provides
research articles and field reports on programs and policies from around the
world.

As a first step towards making cities more livable for people of all ages, we
propose a planning process that will bring together key partners and relevant
stakeholders to determine needed policies, which may include revising
building codes and zoning ordinances, incentivizing multi-site use, and
creating cross-sector policy mechanisms. From this process a proposal may
emerge for a pilot in a few local areas, selected because of their high
numbers of youth and elders and their potential for mobilizing resources

21
See, for example, the International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes
<http://www.icip.info/>; Generations United < http://www.gu.org/>; European Approaches to Inter-
Generational Lifelong Learning < http://www.eagle-project.eu/welcome-to-eagle>; the Beth Johnson
Foundation Centre for Intergenerational Practice < http://www.centreforip.org.uk/>; and PSU
Intergenerational Programs and Aging < http://intergenerational.cas.psu.edu/Global.html>

28
(e.g., local presence of possible partner organizations and prospects for
creating support networks). Organizationally, there may be an Advisory
Committee that will include youth and elders from the participating partners.
Resources will be needed to move forward with planning for such an
integrated effort. A key element will be a facilitator to coordinate work, with
adequate staff and operations support.

A recent expert group meeting on strengthening economic and social ties

through intergenerational solidarity emphasized building on existing social
networks, noting that it does not require major public sector interventions
(UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs 2007c). Nonetheless,
governments remain crucial partners in more broad-based arrangements that
include also the community, family and private sector. This is so in general
but particularly in cultures where values of filial care have been changing, as
is the case in many African and East Asian countries, prompting a
reinterpretation of resource flows within families and a reconsideration of the
role of government in modernization processes (see Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific 2007; Aboderin 2006; Croll 2006;
Yamato 2006). Local government is especially important in regards to
aspects of urban planning and community development, which cannot be left
to either private market forces, or a complementary economy created by
volunteers.

Present circumstances position cities uniquely to become national models for

intergenerational approaches to building strong supportive networks in
communities with high populations of children, youth and elders in greatest
need. Urban policy makers across many countries are facing similar
challenges related to perceptions that aging populations (the so called silver
tsunami) inevitably set up resource competition across age groups in an era
of fiscal constraints. The need for cost-effective solutions is often magnified
by concerns about anticipated cuts or capped growth in health and social
service programs and benefits.

29
However, a review of the literature and observations on the ground enable us
to develop a keen appreciation for the complexity and interlocking nature of
community issues and the importance of responding to these issues in the
connected ways in which residents experience them. Rather than a silver
tsunami, there is a golden wave of opportunity. Urban livability policies are
not necessarily a zero-sum game. Programs and actions that benefit one
population group are not inevitably at the cost of another population group.
Synergistic approaches, where the sum of collaborative work is greater than
the total of disparate efforts, will produce more cost-effective solutions and
create more harmonious communities. We must open up opportunities for
thinking differently and acting differently to ensure the long-term well-being
of the worlds urban residents. Organizationally and politically, cities are well
poised to develop the kinds of innovative policies that are needed to address
the pressing challenges of changing demographics confronting governments
around the world.

Acknowledgement

Jessie Sutherland contributed helpful information on the Finding Home

program in Canada. Shawn Edmonds provided useful research assistance.
Mathew Kaplan offered helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

30
REFERENCES

AARP. 2005. Beyond 50.05; A Report to the Nation on Livable Communities:

Creating Environments for Successful Aging. Washington, DC.

Aboderin, Isabella. 2006. Intergenerational Support and Old Age in Africa.

New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Ageways. 2007. Practical Issues in aging and development, issue 69. URL:
www.helpage.org.

Ball, M. Scott. n.d. Aging-in-place; A Toolkit for Local Governments. Atlanta:

Atlanta Regional Commission Community Housing Resource Center.

Bartlett, S. 2005. Good Governance: Making Age a Part of the Equation.

Children, Youth and Environments 15(2): 1-17.

Bartlett, S. 2005. Integrating Childrens Rights into Municipal Action: A

Review of Progress and Lessons Learned. Children, Youth and Environments
15(2): 18-40.

Beltran, Ana and Smith, Carrie Jefferson. 2003. The Role of Federal Policies
in Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Families: The Case of the
U.S. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.1, No.2, 5-20.

Bengtson, V. L. and R.E.L. Roberts. 1991. Intergenerational solidarity in

aging families. J. of Marriage and the Family 53 (November): 856-870.

Blue Moon. 2006. Sustainable Communities for All Ages: A Viable Futures
Toolkit. See
http://www.bluemoonfund.org/news/news_show.htm?doc_id=464168

Boduroglu, A., Carolyn Yoon, Ting Luo, and Denise C. Park. 2006. Age-
Related Stereotypes: A Comparison of American and Chinese Cultures. The
Gerontologist, 52(5): 324-333.

Boermel, Anna. (2006). No Wasting and Empty Nesters: Old Age in

Beijing. Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, 401-418.

Bryant, D. 2008. 'Garden Mosaics Connecting Youth and Elders to investigate

the mosaic of plants, people, and cultures in gardens'. Ithaca.

Carlson, M.C., Frick, K.D., Fried, L.P., Glass, T.A., Hill, J., Ialongo, N., McGill,
S., Rasmussen, M.D., Rebok, G.W., Seeman, T., Tielsch, J., Wasik, B.A.,
Zeger, S. 2004. A Social Model for Health Promotion for an Aging Population:
Initial Evidence of the Experience Corps Model. Journal of urban Health:
Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 1, 64.

31
Chaaban, Jad. 2008. The costs of youth exclusion in the Middle East. The
Middle East Youth Initiative Working Paper. # 7. May. Washington,
DC/Dubai: Wolfensohn Center for Development/Dubai School of Government.

Chadha, N. K. and Hanspal, Savita. 2006. Economic Aspects of Aging in

India: The Multi-Generational Issues. Journal of Intergenerational
Relationships, Vol.4,No.1, 81-92.

Commonwealth Youth Programme. 2007. The Commonwealth Plan of Action

for Youth Empowerment 2007-2015. London: Author.

Cook, Philip and White, William. 2006. Risk, Recovery and Resilience: Helping
Young and Old Move Together to Support South African Communities
Affected by HIV/AIDS. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.4,
No.1, 65-78.

De Souza, E Maria and E. Grundy. 2007. Intergenerational interaction, social

capital and health: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Brazil. Social
Science & Medicine, Volume 65, Issue 7, October, Pages 1397-1409.

Doyle Rebekah, K.M. 2002. 'Participatory Approaches to Program

Development and Engaging Youth in Research: The Case of an Inter-
Generational Urban Community Gardening Program'. Journal of Extension 40.

Driskelll. D. 2002. Creating better cities with children and youth; a manual
for participation. Paris / London: UNESCO Publishing / Earthscan

Dumbaugh, E. 2008. Designing communities to enhance the safety and

mobility of older adults: A universal approach. Journal of planning Literature
23(1) 17-36.

Dunning, Andrew. 2006. Grandparents- An Intergenerational Resource for

Families: A UK Perspective. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.4,
No.1, 127- 136.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. 2007. Social
support for older persons; The Role of family, community and state in
selected Asian countries. Expert Group Meeting, March 27-29.
ESCAP/EGM/MIPAA/7.

Eheart, B.K., Power, M. B., & Hopping, D. E. 2003. 'Intergenerational

programming for foster-adoptive families: Creating community at Hope
Meadows'. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 1: 17-28.

Feldman, Susan; Mahoney, Helen; Seedsman, Terence. 2003. School-Based

Intergenerational Programs: Laying the Foundations for Sustainability.
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.1, No.2, 47-66.

32
Florida Department of Elder Affairs (2004). Communities for a Lifetime:
Blueprint. See www.communitiesforalifetime.org.

Gill, T. 2006. Home Zones in the UK: History, Policy and Impact on Children
and Youth. Children, Youth and Environments. 16(1): 90-103.

Gallagher, C.B. 2004. ''Our Town': Children As Advocates for Change in the
City'. Childhood 11: 251-262.

Glass, T., Freedman, M., Carlson, M., Hill, J., Frick, K., Ialongo, N., McGill, S.,
Rebok, G., Seeman, T., Tielsch, J., Wasik, B., Zeger, S. and Fried, L. 2004.
'Experience corps: Design of an intergenerational program to boost social
capital and promote the health of an aging society'. Journal of Urban Health
81: 94-105.

Hatton-Yeo, A. and T. Ohsako (eds.). n.d. Intergenerational programmmes:

Public policy and research implications; an international perspective. UNESCO
Institute for Education/Beth Johnson Foundation.

Henkin, N. and Butts, D. (2002). Advancing an Intergenerational Agenda in

the United States. In: M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, and A. Kusano, eds., Linking
lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange (65-82). Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America.

Henkin, Nancy Z., A. Holmes, B. Walter, B. Greenberg, and J. Schwarz. 2005.

Communities for All Ages: Planning Across Generations. Baltimore, MD:
Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Hideyuki, Sano. 2007. Tokyo's neon lights to dim as Japan ages. Reuters,
September 21.

International Consortium for Intergenerational Programs. 2007. ICIP

Newsletter. November. URL: www.icip.info.

Jack, M. n.d. Poverty, children and shelter. Coventry: Homeless

International.

Jackson. R and N. Howe. 2008. The graying of the great powers.

Demography and geopolitics in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Center for
Strategic and International Studies.

Kamete, A. 2007. Aging in African Cities: Revisiting the Issues, Responses

and Outcomes. 29 November-1 December. Conference in Zomba, Malawi.
http://www.nordiskaafrikainstitutet.com/events/conferences/aging/index.xml.
Papers forthcoming.

33
Kaplan, M. 2002. Intergenerational Programs in Schools: Considerations of
Form and Function. International Review of Education. Vol. 48, No. 5
(September), pp. 305-334.

Kaplan, M., Higdon, F., Crago, N., & Robbins, L 2004. 'Futures Festivals: An
intergenerational strategy for promoting community participation'. Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships 2: 27.

Kaplan, M., Kusano, A., and Sugioka, S. 2006. Intergenerational Programs in

Japan: Program Innovation and Planning Considerations. Journal of Family
Resource Management of Japan, 41, 20-30.

Karsten, L. and W. van Vliet- 2006. Children in the City: Reclaiming the
Street. Children, Youth and Environments 16(1): 151-167.

Keng-mun Lee, William. 2004. Living Arrangements and Informal Support for
the Elderly: Alteration to Intergenerational Relationships in Hong Kong.
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.2, No.2, 27-50.

Kreager, Philip. 2006. Migration, social structure and old age support
networks: a comparison of three Indonesian communities. Aging &
Society.26:37-60.

Kuehne, V. 2005. 'Making What Difference? How Intergenerational Programs

Help Children and Families' Elders as Resources. Intergenerational
Strategies Series. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Lam, D. 2007. The demography of youth in developing countries and its

economic implications. WPS 4022. Background paper to the 2007 World
Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lautenschlager, L. and C. Smith. 2007. Beliefs, knowledge and values held

by inner-city youth about gardening, nutrition and cooking. Agriculture and
Human Values 24: 245-258.

Lawrence-Jacobson, A. 2006. 'Intergenerational community action and youth

empowerment'. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 4: 137-147.

Leland, J. 2008. As Gas Prices Soar, Elderly Face Cuts in Aid

New York Times, July 5.

Liddicoat, K.R. et al. 2007. Sharing Programs across Cultures: Lessons from
Garden Mosaics in South Africa. Children, Youth and Environments. Vol. 17,
No. 4, 237-254.

Martin, L. 1990. Changing intergenerational family relations in East Asia. The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 510, July:
102-114.

34
Mayer-Smith, Jolie and Peterat, Linda. 2006. Farm Friends: Exploring
Intergenerational Environmental Learning. Journal of Intergenerational
Relationships, Vol.4, No.1, 107-116.

McKenzie, D. J. 2007. A profile of the worlds young developing country

migrants. WPS 4021. Background paper to the 2007 World Development
Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Middlemiss, Wendy and Meyer, Bonnie J. F.. 2004. Introducing an

Intergenerational, Internet-Based Tutoring Program: Meeting Program
Challenges. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.2, No.2, 7-26.

Morgan, R.E.Jr., Bertera, R.L, Reid, L.A. 2007. An Intergenerational Approach

to Informal Science Learning and relationship Building Amoung Older Adults
and Youth. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships. Vol.5, No.3, 27-44.

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging/ Partners for Livable

Communities. 2007. A Blueprint for Action: Developing a Livable Community
for All Ages. Washington, DC.

National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. 2007. Why

population aging matters; A global perspective. Publication no. 07-6134
Washington: Authors.

National Youth Affairs Scheme. 2006. Community Building through

Intergenerational Exchange Programs. ISBN 1-9211302 96.

Nyesigomwe, Lydia. 2006. Strengthening the Capacity of Grandparents in

providing Care to young Children Affected by HIV/AIDS. Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.4, No.1, 55-64.

Oduaran, Akpovire. 2003. Intergenerational Practice and Possibilities Related

to the HIV/AIDS Pandemic in Botswana and Nigeria. Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.1, No.2, 21-32.

Oduaran, Akpovire. 2006. Living in the Valley of Death: Intergenerational

Programs, Poverty and HIV/AIDS. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships,
Vol.4, No.1, 41-52.

Okoye, Uzoma O. 2005. Young Childrens perception of the Elderly: A

Comparision of Data from the United States and Southeastern Nigeria.
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol.3, No.3 7-24.

Okoye, U. O. and D. S. Obikeze. 2005. Stereotypes and Perceptions of the

Elderly by the Youth in Nigeria: Implications for Social Policy Journal of
Applied Gerontology, Vol. 24, No. 5, 439-452.

35
Pain, R. 2005. Intergenerational relations and practice in the development of
sustainable communities. Background paper for the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister. Durham University: ICRRDS.

Partners for Livable Communities. 2008. Aging-in-place Initiative. URL:

http://www.aginginplaceinitiative.org/

Riggio, Eliana. 2002. Child friendly cities: good governance in the best
interests of the child. Environment and Urbanization. 14(20): 45-58.

Round, John. 2006. The Economic marginalization of Post-Soviet Russias

Elderly Population and the Failure of State Aging Policy: A Case Study of
Magadan City. Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, 441-456.

Scales, P.C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Hintz, N. R., Sullivan, T.

K., Mannes, M., & Grothe, R 2001. 'The role of neighborhood and community
in building developmental assets for children and youth: A national study of
social norms among American adults'. Journal of Community Psychology 29:
703-728.

Seedsman, T.A. 2006. 'Viewing participants as resources for one another,

communities and societies: Intergenerational solidarity toward a better
world'. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 4: 23-39.

Smith, W. 2001. Hope Meadows: Real Life Stories of Healing and Caring from
an Inspiring Community. New York: Berkley.

Thang, L.L., Kaplan, M., and Henkin, N. (2003). Intergenerational

programming in Asia; Converging diversities toward a common goal.
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research, 1
(1), 49-69.

Thang, Leng Leng and Mehta, Kalyani K. 2006. Interdependence in Asian

Families: The Singapore Case. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships,
Vol.4, No.1, 117-126.

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2002.

World Population Aging: 1950-2050. New York: Author.
ST/ESA/SER.A/207

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2005.

Living arrangements of older persons around the world. ST/ESA/SER.A/240
New York: Author

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007a. Development in an

Aging World; World Economic and Social Survey 2007. New York: Author.

36
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007b. World Youth Report.
New York. Author.

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007c. Intergenerational

Solidarity: Strengthening Economic and Social Ties; Expert Group Meeting,
Oct. 23-25. New York: Author.

UN Habitat. 2004. Youth, Children, and Governance. Global Campaign on

Urban Governance, Policy Dialogue Series #2. Nairobi: Author.

UNFPA. 2007. UNFPA framework for action on adolescents and youth. New
York: Author

Varney, D. & W. van Vliet. 2005. Local Environmental Initiatives Oriented to

Children and Youth: A Review of UN-Habitat Best Practices. Children, Youth
and Environments 15(2): 41-52.

Van Eeuwijk, Peter. 2006. Old-age vulnerability, ill-health and care support in
urban areas of Indonesia. Aging in Society. 26:61-80.

Vera-Sanso, Penny. 2006. Experiences in Old Age: A South Indian Example

of how Functional Age is Socially Structured. Oxford Development Studies,
Vol. 34, No. 4, 457-472.

Whitehouse, P.J., Bendezu, E., FallCreek, S., & Whitehouse, C. 2000.

'Intergenerational community schools: A new practice for a new time'.
Educational Gerontology 26: 761-770.

Woolcock, G. and W. Steele. 2008. Child-friendly Community Indicators: A

literature review. Australia: Griffith University, Urban Research program.
June.

Woollcombe, D. 2006. Be the Change! Buntingford, UK: Peace Child

International.

Woollcombe, D. 2007. Youth-led development; empowering youth to make

poverty history. Devon: Green Books/Schumacher Society.

World Bank. 2007. World Bank Development Report 2007: Development

and the Next Generation. Washington, DC: Author.

Yajima, S., Kusano, A., Kuraoka, M., Saito, Y., and Kaplan, M. (Eds.).
(2007). Proceedings of the Uniting the Generations: Japan Conference to
Promote Intergenerational Programs and Practices.

37